Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bloomingdale Regional Public Library

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) JAaron95 ^Talk 14:06, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bloomingdale Regional Public Library

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apparently run-of-the-mill library with local papers as references. I accepted this at AFC because I'm not sure it's deletion-worthy, but wanted to bring it here for wider consideration. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:59, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I added three sources, including one from the Tampa Bay Times, and I believe this article meets WP:GNG. WP:Run-of-the-mill is an essay, and in this case it should defer to the GNG. Altamel (talk) 02:20, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:42, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:42, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:43, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a very borderline case and I'm not impressed with the almost routine coverage in a local paper about the library but I'll defer to the keep argument as the sources seem to make a GNG case albeit very shaky. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:23, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete the coverage is very local and covers routine things that a library does. LibStar (talk) 09:59, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep libraries are an important and enduring part of the community, many good sources are listed in the article (meets WP:GNG). Antrocent (♫♬) 21:07, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:GNG. It does have a relatively high circulation, at 600,000+ books, so there are probably more sources. Esquivalience ^t 13:58, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.